The angry response to Palin by Canadian progressives and feminists makes me ponder what these individuals intend to do about it. When Harper cut the court challenges program, the reaction was a flurry of emails and then meek acceptance. When Harper cut women's programs,ditto. Culture and arts funding? Ditto.When are progressive women going to stop allowing Harper to kick sand in their faces and start fighting?

Here's what Rick Salutin has to say:

quote:

Personally, I think Stephen Harper is calling an election now to get out from under the arts funding cloud - all the protests against his harsh cuts added onto leftover charges about trying to censor films. The issue has legs. It won't go away as he likely thought it would - after some predictable mewling by artsy types alongside some gruff appreciation from the good ol' boys. I imagine he can't understand why. I'd say it's because something has basically changed about the role of art and culture in this society. Lissen up, Stephen:

When will the angry resentment at social program cuts turn from words to action? An election is called for Oct. 14, where are the articulate activist women standing for parliament?

I'm certain that many progressive women will be working behind the scenes but change must come from the House. Where are the high profile names like Judy Rebeck and Maude Barlow?

If you don't like Palin as a VP candidate, think on what effect 4 years of her as VP and 8 years as President will have on social policy in the US and the ramifications for Canadians.

jester, please stick to the topic of this thread which is a continuation of the first five threads on Sarah Palin as VP on the McCain Republican ticket. There are numerous threads for your comments about Harper and the Canadian version of the Republicans.

Unless we've run out of things to say about Palin? Impossible! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote: This is exactly what I am saying. I have read on Huffington Post, comments on here, comments on Feministing questioning whether she should be running at all and stating that she should be home with the kids or insinuating that she is a bad mother because she is running to be VP. This is sexism and should be opposed no matter what you think of her views. Obama has young children and Michelle Obama has quit her job to care for them and join him on the road. Todd Palin left his job to care for the Palin family. Perhaps the message here is that national politics and young families do not mix unless one has a partner willing to sacrifice their own career for the politician's?

"We don't need any more fighting in Washington," Tobal said while having her hair done at a little shop on Route 40, where the customers go longer between appointments in these hard times. "Women are not for women just because they are women. We are intelligent enough to make a conscious decision."

Exactly my take on the Palin pick. I was insulted by this brazen appeal to what the Daily Show's Samantha Bee calls "Vagina-Americans."

Sure. My question relates to progressive women/feminists and what they will do in the current Canadian election to ensure a possible Palin success doesn't have ramifications for Canadians. Not Harper and the Canadian version of the Republicans

This [b]is[/b] the international news and politics forum but, if this subject is beyond the pale and the Palin Chronicles are narrowly focused on what a right-wing abomination she is, feel free to change the opening post to something more suitable.

Is the feminism forum is more apropriate for my querie? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Hey jester. If that's what you want to discuss, what I suggest is to begin again, quoting yourself, again (sorry) and go to the Canadian politics forum. Or feminism, but I think Canadian politics is the best given what you want to discuss.

Originally posted by bigcitygal:[b]Let's keep this one for All Sarah Palin All The Time.[/b]

Right on!

More from Daily Kos (same link as above):

quote: --Palin is a flawed choice. Sure, they would have preferred a wingnut woman politician without the stew of scandals that haven't even come to a full boil yet. They would have preferred an abstinence advocate without a pregnant teenage daughter. They would done better to have gotten a woman who was an actual feminist to pick up disaffected Hillary voters, who were so passionate in large part because of their strong feminist values.

But I guess they run with the whacky woman wingnut they have, not the one they wish they had. Demographically, Palin looked perfect, as mother, governor, and darling of the religious right. But despite all their carrying on, it's not working.

Palin is going to lock up their Crazy Base World vote. Because McCain, despite all his pandering, could not.

I just thought of something while skimming through the comments Kos article,

These two...

quote:Oh, and someone that BigCheneyOil could manipulate...to dumb by half to get it.

Tell us Sarah When is you kid Deploying...I found his 'assignment' in the Arab Press. I think you earned the "Penalty Box" on this one.

quote:being a veteran infantryman, if this is so...she committed an egregious violation of operational security. she has needlessly jeopardized the life of every person in that unit.

So went to the transcript to see exactly what she said:

quote:

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow — Sept. 11 — he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

I'm pretty sure what the veteran infantry man is absolutely correct. In that speech she announced the name of her son, as well as another relative and specifics of there deployments to the entire world.Her being a the potential 2nd from the President of the US. Okee...just put a big honkin target on him. Made me recall the problems when Prince Harry was supposed to be deployed and he ended up NOT going because of all of the 'threats.'

So that got me thinking. Considering that her speech would have been written for her and vetted with a fine tooth comb I can't see this as getting in there by accident. If it did, well that says something about how stupid the campaign people are. If not it means something else. Which could be several things.

Her son will more then likely have to be very protected in Iraq and will not be treated like everyone else. It is a massive security risk not only for him but to anyone that's around him. Whether he was ever going to be near a 'risky' area before she was nominated I have no clue. If he was, he more then likely won't be now. Simply he's not just a regular soldier any more. More then likely assurances of this would be all in place before those words left her lips.

The question in my mind is I wonder if Palin had the smarts to understand all this, leading to a more nefarious, imo, 'discussion' about other reasons for doing it. Palin is no longer just like every 'average' 'Mom' who sends their sons or daughters off to war. To be blatant having to worry about her son being killed has pretty much been alleviated. Sounds like a good deal.

Yes I am cynical because I wouldn't be surprised if the 'whole my son is at war' line will be played up. Heck we might actually get the whole 'hugging and crying' as we send off photo-op.

The next thing I think of is whether or not we'll get 'Track at War' type stories and photos. Will her kid be used so blatantly like that? If that sort of thing does occur it will be absolutely shameful. The average joe or jane may not understand what exactly has to go on behind the scenes in order to orchestrate such a thing. Wagging the dog is the term that comes to mind. Big time. There's just no way her son will likely ever be in any real harms way and if it comes across that way it's all an illusion.

Next scenario that comes to mind, even more nefarious, he's won't go, or he will go and have to be pulled out or purposely re-assigned to a job behind the lines because of all the 'threats'. This will be played out politically for points. Something along the lines of, "He really wants to fight for his country, but due to the evil people, he can't do what he wants to do." If he stays in the safe job, "He will be strong and committed' with a bit of martyring schlick thrown in" The real security issues will be played up something along the lines of, "We understand the security issue, look what we have to go through'. More cynically, 'As a Mom I realize that because of who I am my son is at greater risk. We've decided that the cause is worth it. We can't give in to the evildoers. We stand strong despite it all" Implying that she has to deal with more then the average Mom, when in truth he will be so protected she won't have too really worry at all. If this happens I think I really will barf.

If things like this happen to me the question is just how much was it pre-planned in terms of the strategy and just how much is Palin is in on it. Is she being used because as that first commenter said because she's 'dumb' on this count or was there perhaps a discussion along the lines of, 'So if we go this route your son can still be the 'soldier' but you aren't going to have to worry about him being killed and Palin said, "Perfect, let's roll with it."

I don't support the war but I am uber-cynical about the lengths that this party will go to win this election. Honestly though if her son goes off and little is heard about it, perhaps just a few simple comments, 'We won't speak about because of security issues' then it would actually garner a little respect in my eyes. I can even live with knowing that she's getting as, they like to throw out 'special treatment' if the "I'm just like you card' isn't played up on this issue. If the likely media interest in him being there is met with a 'please just don't, security, security issues' line is used then that will garner a little respect.

Anything else will be just horrid in my mind. So much focus has been put on her pregnant daughter and how she has been put in the spotlight, it's fairness, unfairness, how the pregnancy is being played for points. I missed even thinking much about what it could mean for her son.

Originally posted by bigcitygal:[b]Hey jester. If that's what you want to discuss, what I suggest is to begin again, quoting yourself, again (sorry) and go to the Canadian politics forum. Or feminism, but I think Canadian politics is the best given what you want to discuss.

Let's keep this one for All Sarah Palin All The Time.[/b]

Aye Aye, Skipper. I believe the lack of interest and even passive/agressive response to my querie is answer enough.

Aye Aye, Skipper. I believe the lack of interest and even passive/agressive response to my querie is answer enough.

Sorry for the disruption, carry on.

[ 07 September 2008: Message edited by: jester ][/b]

I hope BCG can give me a little leeway here because I have feel I have to answer this. In my case as someone who has been participating in this thread it wasn't out of lack of interest that I didn't respond. I'll be honest. I think they're generally good questions but wasn't clear on there intent behind them and didn't want to get into questioning it to get a clearer read and perhaps end up derailing what I thought was just intended to be a continuation of the other thread and not a topic which would more then likely go off in an entirely different direction. (which I now may be doing anyway with this post) So I didn't respond. I then went away to do some work and when I came back saw that BCG suggested a new thread and thought 'great I can answer there.'

So no, nothing to do with lack of interest. Again honesty....This last response is pretty insulting. I dunno but I personally find that saying that you know what ALL people that might have read the thread are thinking and reasoning pretty passive aggressive or maybe that graduates to actually being aggressive. I WOULD like to answer at least some of the questions. I DO think it could be an interesting discussion but I also do agree that it's a topic that deserves it's own thread.

"The bouffant in the front, which appears to be teased from underneath, is more traditional, to appeal to the GOP base and those big donors from Houston who've been known to fly with their hairstylists on their private planes. And yet, you get the feeling that at the end of the day, she could shake out that lustrous mane (longer than any other major female U.S. political figure's) and get it on with her man."

Originally posted by Sven:[b] "... you get the feeling that at the end of the day, she could shake out that lustrous mane (longer than any other major female U.S. political figure's) and get it on with her man."

There is an obsession with Palin's looks in much of the media...[/b]

This type of portrayal is not unique to Palin. All female politicians are treated this way. And this is why this sexist bullshit needs to be called what it is, regardless of her politics. I should have predicted the "hair" comments would come, never mind the sexualized fuckwaddery. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]

Also, in the modern War of Optics, regardless of the inherent sexism, the Republicans are smart by not too handily denouncing this branding of their candidate. If you create lots of useless gossip and style pointers regarding a candidate it means that there is more readily available information for the supermarket rag and quicky-cheapy celeb magazines to sponge up. If she is on the front page with glorified looks or the articles are about her looks and not her policies then she has an upperhand against the glamorous and styling Joe Biden. She has a visibility amongst the public that he does not. That visibility can mean a lot of undecided or otherwise uncaring votes with Palin plugged in with some binary code.

quote:Palin Media Avoidance Watch: Day 9 -- McCain Camp Says She Won't Do Interviews Until It Knows She'll Be Treated with "Deference"

September 07, 2008 9:41 AM

Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., just told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that McCain running mate Gov. Sarah Palin won't subject herself to any tough questions from reporters "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

Davis assailed the way the media had discussed Palin and her family in the last week and said the campaign would wait until a less hostile media environment.

The next thing I think of is whether or not we'll get 'Track at War' type stories and photos. Will her kid be used so blatantly like that? If that sort of thing does occur it will be absolutely shameful. The average joe or jane may not understand what exactly has to go on behind the scenes in order to orchestrate such a thing. Wagging the dog is the term that comes to mind. Big time. There's just no way her son will likely ever be in any real harms way and if it comes across that way it's all an illusion.

On the other hand, if Track (if that's really his name) is blown apart by a mine before the election, Palin will attract so many sympathy votes that the contest won't even be close.

That is the prime reason why she was selected by Dirt Barrel Rove. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

The Rethugs want to take away all media's and idle public's attention from pathetic, uncaring McCain as well as from visionary Obama.She is the dummy on the stage to the GOP elite's ventriloquist - you know whos doing the talking, but dammit it if our eyes arent somehow set on the dummy.Like other pessimistic posts said before, even repeated criticism of her may bring more votes in the long run.

She is playing to be dense where it comes to serious issues, and keeps avoiding them while contantly talking about herself. For now, she is given a pass by the media - they creepily refrain from questioning her policies and go for 'fluff'. And lets face it people, no one watches the VP debate, so warmonger Joe B.'s trashing of Palin would happen to the sound of crickets.

Final thought:The common message about this campaign is that of the narratives, i.e purely personality contests. Thus: McSame is a troubled war veteran, Obama a biracial young success story.

Well here's Palin's narrative condensed for you:White redneck woman achieves her "American dream"Time will show whether this would be more compelling to average Yanks than Obama's own "American Dream"(TM)

Would Track Palin dying in Iraq lead to more sympathy votes than Beau Biden dying in Iraq?[/b]

Who knows and I hope we never have to find out.

The same security issues will now apply for Binden's son as well as it did with McCain's one son last year and if he gets elected his other son if he ever goes after his graduation. I went back and checked Biden's speech to see if I missed Biden talking about his son being deployed in the near future. He didn't talk about it at all. Of course it's a different audience with different politics where it's less likely that talking about it would result in positive points politically. I'd say the same sorts of things though if he did or if the Dem's played a 'son at war,' as part of 'I'm just like you' political line or started giving out details of what they're doing while there.

RCP is now showing, for the first time since about April, that McCain is ahead of Obama. I think Palin is the reason for that.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: Sven ][/b]

RCP is a right-wing site. Of course it relies on Gallup's "most likely voter" numbers, rather than the registered voter numbers, which show a smaller lead. It's clear that McCain got a convention bump, just as Obama did. Wait a few days and see where things stand.

quote:[b]In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

[SNIP]

Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.

[SNIP]

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

[SNIP]

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

[SNIP]

The [Democratic] party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.

[b][i]Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal.[/b][/i] The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.[/b]

Originally posted by ElizaQ:[b]Google the author, 'Tammy Bruce' and 'Tammy Bruce fox.'[/b]

I was listening to public radio on the way in to work today. They were interviewing three women pollsters and the consensus was that about 20% of the Hillary supporters are likely to vote for Mac-Palin. They said that Obama really needs about 90% of the Hillary voters to win. So, while Bruce may be in the minority, she does speak for a significant—and critical—number of women.

Had Obama selected HRC as his VP running mate, Palin would not have been on Mac's ticket and the Dems would have walked away with this election. It was stupid stubbornness on Obama’s part. As it turns out, this is going to be a very, very close election.

I was listening to public radio on the way in to work today. They were interviewing three women pollsters and the consensus was that about 20% of the Hillary supporters are likely to vote for Mac-Palin. They said that Obama really needs about 90% of the Hillary voters to win. So, while Bruce may be in the minority, she does speak for a significant—and critical—number of women.[/b]

I don't think it's safe to say that she speaks for all of those 20% of women that the pollsters were talking about. Unless of course her reasons are the reasons the pollsters said those women were going that way. I just wanted to point out where she is coming from and her understanding of feminism. As well of course her affiliation and history with Fox as one of their supposed 'liberals'. As much as I hate to see this election evolve into a debate about what a 'feminist' is and making claims on the basis of 'good' feminism and 'feminists' I think it's important in order to sort through the messaging and propaganda to know who you are dealing with when articles like this come out.

Originally posted by Sven:[b]Had Obama selected HRC as his VP running mate, Palin would not have been on Mac's ticket and the Dems would have walked away with this election. It was stupid stubbornness on Obama’s part. As it turns out, this is going to be a very, very close election.[/b]

Baloney. Why wouldn't he have selected Palin? And selecting Clinton very well could have done him more harm than good. It was, and is, going to be a very close election regardless of whom he selected.

Originally posted by ElizaQ:[b]I don't think it's safe to say that she speaks for all of those 20% of women that the pollsters were talking about.[/b]

Of course not, just like no one person speaks for those HRC supporters who are going to vote for Obama. But, she is a voice from the 1 in 5 who are projected to vote for Mac-Palin.

Frankly, as the numbers are indicating, there is not going to be a tsunami of HRC supporters going over to support the Mac-Palin ticket. Just not going to happen because of fundamental policy differences. But, if a significant bloc of HRC supporters vote for Mac-Palin, that’s going to hurt Obama.

I think the more important voting group affected by Palin are blue-collar workers (male and female). Palin is going to appeal to a huge percentage of those voters who will identify with her background, if not all of her political viewpoints.

[b]With a disdain for science that alarms wildlife experts, Sarah Palin continues to promote Alaska's policy to gun down wolves from planes.[/b]

excerpt:

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. "On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective," he says of Palin. "I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments," he adds about the state's rational for gunning down wolves. "In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary."

Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state's wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on "unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations." As a result, the "inadequately designed predator control programs" threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate and wolf populations. The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears "on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters."

Apparently Palin wasn't fazed. Earlier this year she introduced state legislation that would further divorce the predator-control program from science. The legislation would transfer authority over the program from the state Department of Fish and Game to Alaska's Board of Game, whose members are appointed by, well, Palin. Even some hunters were astounded by her power play.

Yeah, I posted a similar article in one of the earlier Palin threads. You would think the Obama camp would cut an ad featuring everybody's favorite, the polar bear. But that assumes that the Obama campaign is in thinking mode.

One of the more interesting poll indications was the “favorability rating” (i.e., how much do the voters like a particular candidate), particularly among the critical independent voters:

quote:[b] McCain's favorability rating increased from 50% favorable last week to 57% favorable now, a significant jump that indicates the GOP convention was a success. Among [b][i]independent[/b][/i] voters, [b][i]61% now have a favorable impression of him, compared to just 49% who said the same a week ago[/b][/i].

Nearly half - 49% - said they had a favorable opinion of Barack Obama, while 50% they had a negative impression of him. Among [b][i]independent[/b][/i] voters, [b][i]47% gave him favorable marks, compared to 46% who said the same thing last week[/b][/i].[/b]

quote:When Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's Vice Presidential pick, I found it a little disturbing that she told the public that her oldest son, Track, would be deploying to Iraq on September 11. Generally, disclosing the date of deployment is against Operational Security (OPSEC) and illegal.

Calling around to a couple of Public Affairs Officers (PAO) who would be handling the flow of information about Track and his unit, VoteVets.org found out that, first, Track is not deploying on September 11. He may be part of a deployment ceremony that day, before going to Kuwait, though one Public Affairs Officer said that any details of the upcoming ceremony hadn't been made public yet by the military.

Governor Palin may have spilled the beans on that one, while showing she doesn't know the difference between a soldier deploying to Iraq vs. one preparing to deploy to Iraq. And while not illegal, if she really did believe that's when he's deploying to Iraq, then she didn't know enough to keep quiet about that to keep from violating OPSEC -- something a potential Commander in Chief should know.

But, more disturbing, and definitely in violation of security, are an explosion of stories that say specifically where in Iraq Track is deploying to, which have been dutifully eaten up by right wing websites, and reprinted. I will not reprint it here, because I would only be compounding the issue. But, unfortunately, it is very easy to find on the web at this point.

As veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, we are alarmed with recent leaks that have led to a multitude of stories in the media divulging details regarding the deployment and future movements of Track Palin, the son of Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin. We are attaching such examples of these details appearing in the media.

As you know, leaking such details is a clear violation of Operational Security (OPSEC), as defined in DOD Directive (DODD) 5205.02, and Army Regulation 530-1.

After speaking with a number of Public Affairs Officers, we are confident that the Department of Defense has not leaked these details. However, as it is simply impossible for any reporter to figure out these details on their own if all they know is the name of a soldier and where he is based, someone has compromised security, not only for the son of a potential Vice President of the United States, but all those who serve with him.

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:[b]I hope for the sake of her son that the polls don't show his death would cause a bump in the polls with a sympathy vote because if they do I fear for his life.[/b]

quote:Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for.

Uh, what? No, I don't think so. Sarah Palin most certainly does NOT represent "everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for". She's a regressive throwback who does her best to ensure that it's as difficult as possible for other women to overcome the obstacles in their path to success. She's anti-choice, homophobic, and cuts funding for social programs, which are generally what women rely upon when they have children, leave abusive spouses, etc.

Just because you've got a pussy and wear a powersuit, doesn't mean that you "represent feminism".

I don't think McCain's one son is there right now, he was there last year and his youngest who could end up eventually going hasn't graduated yet. With Biden, be a bit crass, if there are ever any polls about the sympathy thing I don't think there's anyway in hell that the Repubs, who are in charge, would let that happen.

quote:[b]Then, just when you thought it was all over and the recovery could begin, Republicans handed us Sarah Palin.

The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care.

[SNIP]

By far the most insulting aspect of Palin's candidacy is the McCain team's hope that placing a ballsy female on the ticket will attract some former Hillary supporters by stoking their gender-based resentments against Obama and the DNC. Palin has been happy to encourage this strategy by cheering Hillary's "eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling" and offering herself up as a way to help women go even farther. Sadly, some Hillary dead-enders may be so blinded by bitterness that they fall for this nonsense.

[SNIP]

Working mothers in particular should be holding their breath. The McCain camp's decision to pitch Palin's Supermom-of-five status as one of her chief assets has opened yet another front in the endless and endlessly counterproductive Mommy Wars. The moment Palin's addition to the ticket was announced, women began publicly and privately savaging the hard-charging governor for perceived mothering missteps both great and small. (What kind of pregnant woman is reckless enough to travel twelve-plus hours from Texas to Alaska after her water breaks? What mom subjects her pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old to the scrutiny of a presidential race?! How dare she take her newborn to a campaign event without socks?!!) How, or whether one should even try, to balance career and family remains a raw subject for women in this country, and the centrality of Palin's motherhood to her candidacy guarantees that this corrosive debate will rage for the remainder of the election.[/b]

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Right. A pro-choice feminist is thrilled to hear of a pro-life nominee for Vice President. How is it better that Palin is a pro-life woman, rather than a pro-life man?

It's this myth that Obama should have picked Clinton as his VP nominee. Why should Obama have picked Clinton if he didn't trust her?

Pick your reason for him not trusting her -- Bill Clinton's behaviour, the problem of having to vet the Clinton finances, Mark Penn's memo about Obama not being "fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values", [url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Taking_Obama_at_his_word.html] or her comments on "60 Minutes" about taking Obama "at his word" that he's not a Muslim, "as far as she knew."[/url]

Despite not trusting her, he should have picked her since she was a woman, and that act would have been feminist?

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:[b]Right. A pro-choice feminist is thrilled to hear of a pro-life nominee for Vice President. How is it better that Palin is a pro-life woman, rather than a pro-life man?[/b]

The author of the San Francisco Chronicle piece addressed that specific point:

quote:[b]Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters. [/b]

I think she is arguing the following:

■ A candidate’s position on abortion is not [i]the[/i] litmus test for [i]all[/i] voters. It is obviously determinative for many voters (on both sides of that issue). But, there are many pro-life voters who will vote for a pro-choice candidate and vice versa. This is particularly true for voters in the middle (the independents and the undecided voters who will determine the outcome of this election).

■ Abortion is not a critical issue for either McCain and Palin and they are, instead, much more focused on government reform (something that has appeal for independents).

That all being said, we will find out in November (when the voters cast their ballots) whether or not her argument is valid.

Originally posted by Stargazer:[b]That article is bullshit and if the American people are stupid enough to pick those two scumbags McCain/Palin then America is more screwed up than it ever was (and that's saying a lot).[/b]

Well, if I had $1,000 to bet, I'd bet that Palin will crash-n-burn before November and that Obama will win by 3%-5% (maybe more).

Well, if I had $1,000 to bet, I'd bet that Palin will crash-n-burn before November and that Obama will win by 3%-5% (maybe more).

Ha! I'll take that bet, or any other bet against the Republicans that anyone cares to make. For one thing, Palin will not crash and burn in any way. She may stumble here and there, but none of the "life-is-scary-change-is-bad" Repubs will care one bit. I daresay she will prove to be more adept than McCain is by the end.

But far more importantly, we all seem to have forgotten that the voting system is rigged in the US. The only way the Democrats could possibly win the presidency is in an Obama landslide that is too big to fix, and I think if that was going to happen it would have been apparent by now. Our poor neighbours to the South do not live in a democracy any more.